| Title |
Are anxiously attached women better mindreaders?
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive Processing, March 2013
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10339-013-0556-2 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Thomas Hünefeldt, Fiorenzo Laghi, Francesca Ortu |
| Abstract |
This research was aimed at providing first evidence concerning the relationship between adults' self-reported attachment style and their performance on a standard 'theory of mind' task. Based on adult attachment theory, we hypothesized that the two dimensions of self-reported adult attachment, anxiety and avoidance, are differently related to 'theory of mind,' and that this relationship is moderated by variables concerning the 'theory of mind' stimuli. The 'Experiences in Close Relationships' questionnaire and the 'Reading the Mind in the Eyes' test were administered to 132 young women. In line with our expectations, women's attachment-related anxiety was associated with better mind reading concerning stimuli that were emotionally neutral or difficult to recognize. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 59 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | 2% |
| United States | 1 | 2% |
| Unknown | 57 | 97% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 22% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 14% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 7 | 12% |
| Researcher | 7 | 12% |
| Student > Bachelor | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 10 | 17% |
| Unknown | 10 | 17% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 33 | 56% |
| Social Sciences | 5 | 8% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 3 | 5% |
| Engineering | 2 | 3% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Unknown | 12 | 20% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 July 2013.
All research outputs
#18,853,943
of 24,036,420 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive Processing
#242
of 345 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#147,105
of 200,630 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive Processing
#5
of 7 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,036,420 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 345 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.5. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 200,630 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 23rd percentile – i.e., 23% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 7 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 2 of them.